Lane123's page

Ah. Yes, that is how the rules are written. But why do you need to be able to channel negative energy in order to hit two targets with positive energy? And how is hitting an undead and a living target with positive energy at the same time pulling forth "both positive and negative energy simultaneously"? Yes, it is simultaneously harming one target and healing another, but it's doing both using a single channel type. If you did what RAW says the feat does, then you would NOT be using positive and negative energy simultaneously.

Again, I understand how the feat works as written. My question is not what the rules say. May question is if what the rules say is different from what Paizo intended for the rules to say.

You said it's clear to you how the feat works, but you didn't actually explain how you think it works. Do you think the feat was intended to cast the same spell twice (either 2x heal or 2x harm) such that you MUST target one undead and one living target? Because yes, that is what the rules as written say but I have no idea how you think the feat requirements and flavor text match that.

I think you're confused about what my question is. I understand how the rules as written work. My confusion is that the flavor text and feat requirements make absolutely no sense based on how the RAW work. I was asking if the rules as they are written could potentially be different from how they were intended to be used.

Also just to make sure, you stated that the purpose of the feat was to allow you to harm enemies as well as heal allies. But since you already had to have Versatile Font, you were already capable of doing this. The feat would be to allow you to do both at the same time, but in a way that does not require both positive and negative channeling. Why do you need to be able to channel both types of energy in order to be able to channel only one type but on two targets?

Is Ebb and Flow worded poorly? It states "You can pull forth both positive and negative energy simultaneously to harm your enemies and heal your allies. If your next action is to cast a 1-action or 2-action heal or harm spell, choose one creature in range that would be harmed by the spell, and choose another creature within range that would be healed by the spell. Your heal or harm targets both creatures."

The way that it is worded, it sounds like you pick either Heal or Harm, and pick one undead and one living target and cast it on both. This way you damage the undead and heal the living, or vice-versa.

I feel as though this is wrong though. First off, it requires Versatile Font as a prerequisite. There is no reason you need to be able to channel negative energy if channeling positive energy on two targets was one of the potential uses, and vice-versa. Second, the flavor text explicitly says you're supposed to be channeling both positive and negative energy simultaneously. That is the exact opposite of how RAW works. Channeling both simultaneously would be casting Heal and Harm at the same time, not casting Heal at two different targets. I get that flavor text isn't rules, but I think in this instance the flavor text is good evidence that the RAW are not the RAI.

I think the way it was supposed to work was basically the same as Twinned Channeling from 1e. You pick two targets, both living or both undead, and cast Heal on one and Harm on the other. This way you MUST do damage to one target and heal another, no cheesing by having a Dhampir in the party so you get double healing.

Sorry to submit multiple posts, but I would also like to express something that I've seen addressed multiple times. I would like for the "background" portion of character creation to be more flexible. My recommendation, which of course may be problematic in a way that I have failed to realize, is to make it explicitly legal to design your own background. Give a list of lore feats and direction on how to create one's background, and let players go wild. Something like "Additionally, you can create your own background that differs from the examples given. Simply select two ability boosts, a bonus skill feat, and a lore skill." I think this would help alleviate some concerns that 2e is removing roleplaying options in a way that mimics the most recent edition of the major competing tabletop RPG (censored for copyright reasons).

Just to clarify, at what point should we bring up details related to flavor over function? For example, I think that Pharasma, as the impartial judge of the dead, should have no issues with her clerics channeling negative energy. Should I wait to voice this and similar concerns until after the playtest is over, or should I bring such ideas up immediately?

And before I get flooded with comments disagreeing with my views on Pharasma, I base this idea on what negative energy *is* according to 1e lore. It isn't inherently connected to creating abominations that walk the line between life and death, so Pharasma shouldn't object to it.

If I have Bit of Luck (Luck domain, ability to choose to roll 2d20 and drop the lowest) and Called (trait, may choose to reroll a nat. 1) and I activate BoL and roll 1 and 2, would I be able to use Called to reroll that 1?

On one hand, it could be interpreted that my attack roll was the highest of the 2d20 (nat. 2) and therefore not a nat. 1. But I could also understand it as my attack roll consisting of 2d20, with the value being the higher of the 2 and the nat. 1 being part of the attack roll. Which is correct?

The CRB lists three spells, (Blood Transcription, Mnemonic Enhancer, and Mage's Lucubration) as wizard-only in the sorcerer/wizard spell list on page 232. When the CRB was first published, this was true, as only wizards and sorcerers used this list and the three spells are incompatible with sorcerer spellcasting mechanics. However, the arcanist uses this spell list and these spells are compatible with the arcanist.

Either the arcanist should have a small entry stating that it is considered a wizard for the purpose of determining which spells it may learn/cast, or the list on page 232 should be updated to say prepared caster only.

If the arcanist were forbidden from taking those spells, the same logic would prevent him from picking sorcerer/wizard spells as he is neither a sorcerer nor a wizard.

Simply put, it's all one spell list, and the original book simply put some effort into highlighting that some spells simply do not work for a sorcerer. Anyone who has access to the sorcerer/wizard spell list can select any of those spells.

A sorc is not able to learn these spells at all. They're listed as "Wizard X" instead of "Sorcerer/Wizard X" but they are in fact on the sorcerer/wizard spell list. Right now I agree that the wording should be interpreted to mean that sorcerers cannot learn the spell, but it could be interpreted as meaning that only wizards may learn the spell unless the caster is getting the spell from a different caster's list.

It is worth knowing that in the spell description of Mnemonic Enhancer and ,Mage's Lucubration no mention of this being a Wizard only spell.

Blood Transcription, says it's a alchemist 2, magus 2, wizard 2, witch 2 spell

Right, I mentioned in my post that none of these spells state in the spell text that they are wizard-only. They are tagged as wizard-only on the spell list on page 232 of the CRB, but this seems to serve to exclude sorcs, not to state that only wizards may learn this spell from the sorc/wiz spell list. It could be argued that by RAW the spell could be wizard-only on the sorc/wiz list, and the others are able to learn it because they use different lists that do not tag the spell as wizard-only.

Of course, IMO the RAI is that sorcerers are unable to learn the spells, even though they're on the sorcerer/wizard spell list, because they are incompatible with the sorcerer's spellcasting mechanics.

Some spells (Blood Transcription, Mnemonic Enhancer, and Mage's Lucubration) are listed as "wizard-only" in the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list (not the spell text, only the list of names of spells), and from what I can tell, these spells are Wizard-only because they are incompatible with spontaneous casting. The spells are listed as learned at "Wizard X" instead of "Sorcerer/Wizard X" and the text of the spell does not specify that the spell is available only to wizards.

Arcanists use the same spell list, and these spells are not incompatible with Arcanist spellcasting mechanics. As far as I'm aware, this listing has existed since before Arcanists existed, so the fact that it is "wizard-only" instead of "non-sorcerer only" may be an oversight. Is the "wizard-only" listing meant to exclude all non-wizards using the spell, or only to exclude sorcerers?